sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you were.I'm not really under an illusion that posting on here or other boards is gonna do anything
I never said you said it, I said he was a hypothetical question.
Well I'm busy now so leave it, if you want.there is more heat than light anyway.
hey, genuinely big respect to you. Internet forums are so full of bile and hatred filled morons, incapable of sharing a difference of opinion, without responding with bile and hatred. It is genuinely refreshing to come across someone in a who talks to people in here, as he would in real life. Again, big respect.Trip got postponed, but yeah i'll leave it. I'm clearly reading the wrong things in your posts so i'll leave it there
Which just show's your a liar or cant read
I tend to vacillate between the two. Your complete misrepresentation of the real position of the SWP on so many many topics, even though you claim to have been a member, is astounding.
Perhaps its because the swp change their position so many times?
You fucked up, apologise and move on.Does it? I think it's a legitimate comment from a literate person.
Elucidate this "complete misrepresentation", please. I'm betting that whatever you elucidate, I can find a non-selective quotation from the writings of a member of the CC that gainsays your elucidation.
absolutely! Including "uber" revlutionaries such as VP or Tony Cliff. because the inculcation of the dominant ideas in society is unremitting, all pervasive.
BUT! That does not negate the idea that some people are less inculcated than others, and that we could all move to being less so inculcated. In my opinion, that movement takes place through class struggle, not by debate in places like this. That's why you don't start from fighting with people about their ideas, you always start from uniting and fighting with people against a ruling class, and in that struggle their ideas change.
You fucked up, apologise and move on.
Agency V Structure?No it isn't. Such views may be hegemonic, if you want to get all Gramsci about things, but they're not unavoidable. If they were unremitting and all-pervasive, there wouldn't be an SWP, for a start. Hegemony is inherently unstable, which is why the ruling classes continually attempt to legislate in favour of their ideas - to reinforce them against any and all alternative currents.
But it does negate it. You can't have it both ways, that inculcation and indoctrination is all-pervasive and unremitting, and that such unremitting all-pervasion affects people asymmetrically.
Agency V Structure?
There you go then.We can all exercise a degree of agency within even the most constraining structure, just as all agency inheres structural elements. There's tension between the two forces, but they're interdependent as well as being contingent. Even the "all-pervasive" and unremitting" ideas you posit are subject to those forces working within them. That's why no political or economic regime is permanent - because even the most closed political idea, theory or concept is still subject to influence.
easy reading.http://socialistworker.co.uk/ http://socialistworker.org/well, like many interested but politically naive people, I started to read this and am now falling over with ennui. Takes me back to tedious seminars on post-structuralism and other such opaque subjects at college (when at least it was (almost) free - if I had to pay 9 large ones to hear the same sort of rambling incoherent rubbish I reckon I would be disrobing, shouting out demons out or summat). And yes, I also paid subs to various left wing tribalists in the 70s and 80s, only to flounder about with yet more incomprehension. Well, I am sure these discussions are thrilling and enlivening to those in the know or who possess the relevant tools for understanding but god help us dimwits who just want some theoretical grounding in our political landscape, if only so we can inculcate our grandchildren that there is more to life than the Kardashians and X-factor. Pleased to say said grandaughter had her first taste of Occupy - takes me back to encircling the base at Greenham.
Apologise for what?
There you go then.
well, like many interested but politically naive people, I started to read this and am now falling over with ennui. Takes me back to tedious seminars on post-structuralism and other such opaque subjects at college (when at least it was (almost) free - if I had to pay 9 large ones to hear the same sort of rambling incoherent rubbish I reckon I would be disrobing, shouting out demons out or summat). And yes, I also paid subs to various left wing tribalists in the 70s and 80s, only to flounder about with yet more incomprehension. Well, I am sure these discussions are thrilling and enlivening to those in the know or who possess the relevant tools for understanding but god help us dimwits who just want some theoretical grounding in our political landscape, if only so we can inculcate our grandchildren that there is more to life than the Kardashians and X-factor. Pleased to say said grandaughter had her first taste of Occupy - takes me back to encircling the base at Greenham.
What point is that comrade?What, you think that my post supports your point? It doesn't, you eye-rolling twat.
I fully agree with you, that notions of revolutionary and political consciousness etc are a revolutionary perspective,I didn't mean to imply otherwise, that's what I meant by a revolutionary centric viewpoint.so I am acknowledging it is not an objective viewpoint IMPOV. What would have been a better way to phrase that?That isn't a yardstick, that's your perspective. A yardstick is an objective tool, not a subjective opinion.
That's hardly "revolutionary centric". Defining something as a "revolutionary centric viewpoint" merely because it places the BNP as "backwards" makes no sense, as it would then follow that anyone who despised the BNP's ideology as the crap it is would be "revolutionary centric".
chill.What, you think that my post supports your point? It doesn't, you eye-rolling twat.
okay I missed this one. Perhaps you could calm down, and explain to me how my English is bad.
I fully agree with you, that notions of revolutionary and political consciousness etc are a revolutionary perspective,I didn't mean to imply otherwise, that's what I meant by a revolutionary centric viewpoint.so I am acknowledging it is not an objective viewpoint IMPOV. What would have been a better way to phrase that?
now you seem to be saying that both the political compass, and the traditional left right spectrum are invalid yardsticks. Okay. So how do you measure the BNPs ideology, and decide they come up to the measurement of "crap"?
from my reading there seemed to be a contradiction in what you say. On the one hand you seem to be the saying, there is no difference backwards and forwards, higher and lower, crap and good, in ideologies. They are just different viewpoints.and then you seem to say the opposite. can you explain your views?
thanks for that.Can you see the difference between a measurement of distance and the allocation of moral worth? A yardstick does the former; a revolutionary perspective is premised on the latter. Trying to force ultimately moral choices into the same category as feet and inches has been tried and found wanting.
Louis MacNeice
If you have a really low level of consciousness, like Nick Griffin, you're quite the opposite, and offers solutions such as dictatorship which would be retrogressive in a social evolutionary sense. And between them to extremes you get people who accept progressive and regressive ideas, with contradictory levels of consciousness.
yes but there's a difference between working-class consciousness, political consciousness, and revolutionary consciousness. So whilst Griffin has a high level of political consciousness, he has a low level of revolutionary consciousness. His politics are counterrevolutionary politics, fascism. [just repeat read, what I said above, from that perspective.]nah, griffin's a twat but he certainly isn't unaware or stupid. and would you say cameron etc had a high or low level of class consciousness? i'd say their awareness of what benefits them as a class is pretty high tbh, even if they're utterly incompetent at carrying out their aims.
the notion of revolutionary consciousness accept all that. He has a high level of political consciousness, from a fascist viewpoint. But he doesn't have a consciousness of the innate contradictions within capitalist society which cause it to going to boom and slump, for example, and which would be just as inherent in a fascist society. so he has a low level of revolutionary conscious, not a low level of political consciousness.would it benefit him, or the class he's in if there was a revolution tho? no. he's a pretty rich guy. and he's made a living through counterrevolutionary politics so he'd probably be first up against the wall and he knows it. he's aware of what a revolution would involve if it took place
only if you explain why."built on the basis of balls"
/cheapshot